What is "Trickle Down Economics"?

[zeke]

You know what skook. There are two types of plutocrats. One that wants to throw some crumbs to the "common" man and one type that likes to make you think they are going to throw some crumbs to the common man.

You support the ones that are lying to you. They don't want you to have any crumbs.
And you support them. Hell I bet you think you'll be a "plutocrat" one day. Or at the very least be a plutocrat ass kisser, which you already are. Nice job. To bad it didn't get you anything. Except for that "brown nose" you are always showing off.

 

[EconChick]

Weird weren't you the one GOING for her Doctorate in Economics was was that some other right winger who is always wrong?

Yes, because when people talk about inequality, of course that mean they want everyone to make the same *shaking head*

Yo, dumdum, thanks for confirming you don't even have an undergrad degree. Surely someone with ANY degree wouldn't say something so egregiously stupid.

Dad has an advanced degree in "Crack"

SNAP. That was funny.

 

[EconChick]

While you're spouting these dumb slogans, playing Charlie McCarthy, Edgar Bergman has his hand in your pocket, he wants as much of your money as he can get.

Man, you guys have swallowed this cliche capitalism crap hook, line and sinker. You fell hard for the old bait and switch. You think it's motherhood and apple pie Capitalism under that shell? The reality is that Capitalism doesn't even exist. You're shilling for the Plutocrats running the con game. Under the shell is a good old fashion oligarchy where wealth equals power and power equals more wealth.

You think you're going to get a shot at that power? Not unless you're wealthy. And I mean wealthy, not a lousy couple of million. Real wealth in America is measured in tens of millions or hundreds of millions for starters. The guys running this shell game don't give a shit about the Chigago school, trickle-down or trickle up, Keynes, Friedman, or you. All they care about is which K-street crony can get them a yes vote on the next bauble they want and have convinced you that they need.

While you're sloganeering for the global concentration of corporate power they're laughing all the way to the bank. Must be more than one of you born every minute. You poor phony key-board capitalists. You're nothing more than fairground barkers trying to sell non-existant shares of a non-existant dream to the other suckers lined up outside the gate. Jesus, give me a tea-partier any day, at least some of them know crony-capitalism when they see it.

Great. Another clod that sees things in black and white.

Even under your scenario of how horrible life is in a semi Capitalist country, people still start businesses, make a lot of money, take great care of their loved ones, move on and do other things after the realization all that money isn't what it's cracked up to be, and continue to be very happy with their lives and their accomplishments without giving a shit about all that power.

Have both parties engaged in crony capitalism? Absolutely. But those of us who don't whine about "the man" the way you do can still do just fine if we put our minds to it, while also working hard to try to change the system.

You know....like getting on message boards and trying to educate the brainwashed and moronic that can be found glorifying Socialism and collectivism.

Hey econchick, are there such people as "plutocrats? Have you ever run across what the definition of a "plutocracy" is. You know; government of the rich, by the rich, for the rich.
Ever heard that before?

Have there ever been ultra rich people from around the world that have conspired to become even more rich and powerful?

But those people and their desires don't exist today. Is that what you want to claim?
Ever read any history?

What the hell does that have to do with Billc's comment that I was reacting to?

He asked why is it greed to want to keep more in your pocket. Translation: that means why do you libs insist on taking more taxes that are supposed to be helping middle America.

Then smedly doo right comes along and responds to that by going off on some tangent about about there being no such thing as capitalism.

I was just simply throwing the BS flag on smedley implying there is no such thing as capitalism.

Here let me educate you. There's a continuum. Envision it being scored from 1 to 100. Pure Communism all the way at one end and complete laissez faire Capitalism on the other end.

Neither exists. Neither has ever existed. All nations fall somewhere on that continuum. Even with the socialist influences in this country, we are still a Capitalist country.

If you want to talk about powerful government wanting more power - that's a socialist concept.

Now...can we get back to answering why it's considered greedy to want to keep more of your own money............ or do you want to keep getting wayyyyyyyyyy off the subject.

 

[The Rabbi]

Econ, poor Zeke is the toothless stumpbroke of USMB. He's never done anything in his life but occasionally taken a paycheck from some rich person. He feels he's been denied his rightful place by the rich and powerful. There are two kinds of people in the world: people who think their situation is caused by others, and people who think they have control over their lives. Guess which one Zeke is.

 

[Listening]

“I have never understood why it is "greed" to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money.”

― Thomas Sowell, Barbarians inside the Gates and Other Controversial Essays

....

While you're spouting these dumb slogans, playing Charlie McCarthy, Edgar Bergman has his hand in your pocket, he wants as much of your money as he can get.

Man, you guys have swallowed this cliche capitalism crap hook, line and sinker. You fell hard for the old bait and switch. You think it's motherhood and apple pie Capitalism under that shell? The reality is that Capitalism doesn't even exist. You're shilling for the Plutocrats running the con game. Under the shell is a good old fashion oligarchy where wealth equals power and power equals more wealth.

You think you're going to get a shot at that power? Not unless you're wealthy. And I mean wealthy, not a lousy couple of million. Real wealth in America is measured in tens of millions or hundreds of millions for starters. The guys running this shell game don't give a shit about the Chigago school, trickle-down or trickle up, Keynes, Friedman, or you. All they care about is which K-street crony can get them a yes vote on the next bauble they want and have convinced you that they need.

While you're sloganeering for the global concentration of corporate power they're laughing all the way to the bank. Must be more than one of you born every minute. You poor phony key-board capitalists. You're nothing more than fairground barkers trying to sell non-existant shares of a non-existant dream to the other suckers lined up outside the gate. Jesus, give me a tea-partier any day, at least some of them know crony-capitalism when they see it.

I was O.K. until you decided that suckers only exist on one side.

I agree that the rich (and the system in general) is set up for the wealthy to get more power. I think even the founders understood that which is why they wanted to keep it spread out so that nobody could "accumulate" it.

But the rich have played the left just as much and they buy into the same crap only with a different dressing.

The idea of social justice is a total joke and always has been.

Social justice is their social justice.

 

[RKMBrown]

^Moron thinks patents are monopolies.

Uhmmm a patent is a granted monopoly. Nimrod.

Only to produce a specific item. Other items might compete with it under different patents.
AMD and Intel both compete in chips, each using their own patented technology.
I realize that's an advanced concept for a chowderhead like you, but there you have it.

That's called licensing. The other option is to not license the invention.

So now your point has been changed to there are no monopolies other than patent monopolies. Cause there is no such thing as a monopoly on anything else. ROFL you heard it folks monopolies don't exist. They are a figment of our imagination. We might as well delete monopoly and oligopoly from the dictionary.

 

[The Rabbi]

Uhmmm a patent is a granted monopoly. Nimrod.

Only to produce a specific item. Other items might compete with it under different patents.
AMD and Intel both compete in chips, each using their own patented technology.
I realize that's an advanced concept for a chowderhead like you, but there you have it.

That's called licensing. The other option is to not license the invention.

So now your point has been changed to there are no monopolies other than patent monopolies. Cause there is no such thing as a monopoly on anything else. ROFL you heard it folks monopolies don't exist. They are a figment of our imagination. We might as well delete monopoly and oligopoly from the dictionary.

I havent changed my point at all. With the exception of a few limited areas, like mail delivery, or the local water or electric company, there is no monopoly. Patents are exclusive rights to produce a particular item. But that item might compete with other patented items in any business. I cited AMD and Intel as an example but I am sure there are others. Glock uses a finish called tenifer, while Smith and Wesson uses one called melonite. Each one patented.
So no there are really no monopolies outside of the limited areas I mentioned. You have failed to prove your point.

 

[RKMBrown]

Only to produce a specific item. Other items might compete with it under different patents.
AMD and Intel both compete in chips, each using their own patented technology.
I realize that's an advanced concept for a chowderhead like you, but there you have it.

That's called licensing. The other option is to not license the invention.

So now your point has been changed to there are no monopolies other than patent monopolies. Cause there is no such thing as a monopoly on anything else. ROFL you heard it folks monopolies don't exist. They are a figment of our imagination. We might as well delete monopoly and oligopoly from the dictionary.

I havent changed my point at all. With the exception of a few limited areas, like mail delivery, or the local water or electric company, there is no monopoly. Patents are exclusive rights to produce a particular item. But that item might compete with other patented items in any business. I cited AMD and Intel as an example but I am sure there are others. Glock uses a finish called tenifer, while Smith and Wesson uses one called melonite. Each one patented.
So no there are really no monopolies outside of the limited areas I mentioned. You have failed to prove your point.

Oh wait now we have little monopolies like ELECTRIC POWER AND WATER. I mean who needs that stuff anyway?

You need a life saving drug? Don't worry there's a patent for that, so what if it costs 10000 times more than it should. Drug monopolies are good for us. Please ignore the war on drugs, cause that isn't really being waged to keep the drug company profit oligopoly intact. Let's ignore the medicare expansion that sends US tax payer funds to drug company pockets who in turn scratch the back of politicians.

You want to get a loan or credit card from your credit union? Oh wait the banking oligopoly doesn't like that so the feds go after them. Wait isn't that QE money being used to shore up bank profits? Well they are to big to fail right?

I've got an idea, why don't you tell me one market that is not being manipulated by one of a single monopoly or an oligopoly and we'll just slap that down instead of me embarrassing you on all markets at once.

 

[Lakhota]

Tax Rate vs. Job Growth

In fact, if you ranked each year since 1950 by overall job growth, the top five years would all boast marginal tax rates at 70 percent or higher. The top 10 years would share marginal tax rates at 50 percent or higher. The two worst years, on the other hand, were 2008 and 2009, when the top marginal tax rate was 35 percent. In the 13 years that the top marginal tax rate has been at its current level or lower, only one year even cracks the top 20 in overall job creation.

Contrary to Republican claims, lower taxes on the rich don’t lead to higher economic growth either.

CHART: Lower Taxes On The Rich Don't Lead To Job Growth

Tax Rate vs. Economic Growth

Back in the 1950s, when the top marginal tax rate was more than 90 percent, real annual growth averaged more than 4 percent. During the last eight years, when the top marginal rate was just 35 percent, real growth was less than half that. Altogether, in years when the top marginal rate was lower than 39.6 percent — the top rate during the 1990s — annual real growth averaged 2.1 percent. In years when the rate was 39.6 percent or higher, real growth averaged 3.8 percent. The pattern is the same regardless of threshold. Take 50 percent, for example. Growth in years when the tax rate was less than 50 percent averaged 2.7 percent. In years with tax rates at or more than 50 percent, growth was 3.7 percent.

As Linden put it, “these numbers do not mean that higher rates necessarily lead to higher growth. But the central tenet of modern conservative economics is that a lower top marginal tax rate will result in more growth, and these numbers do show conclusively that history has not been kind to that theory.” Indeed, these numbers put the lie to the common Republican refrain that Obama and Democrats in Congress are trying to implement a “job-killing tax hike” by putting the top tax rate back to where it was under President Clinton.

CHART: Since 1950, Lower Top Tax Rates Have Coincided With Weaker Economic Growth

Conservatives can spin it all they wish - but the facts do not support their spin - neither in job growth nor economic growth. The trickle-down theory of giving the rich bigger meals while hoping they will leave more table scraps is laughable, and has been factually proven to be illogical economic policy.

 

[bripat9643]

Uhmmm a patent is a granted monopoly. Nimrod.

Only to produce a specific item. Other items might compete with it under different patents.
AMD and Intel both compete in chips, each using their own patented technology.
I realize that's an advanced concept for a chowderhead like you, but there you have it.

That's called licensing. The other option is to not license the invention.

So now your point has been changed to there are no monopolies other than patent monopolies. Cause there is no such thing as a monopoly on anything else. ROFL you heard it folks monopolies don't exist. They are a figment of our imagination. We might as well delete monopoly and oligopoly from the dictionary.

The only corporate monopolies that have ever existed are all creations of the government. Take your local cable monopoly, for instance. Many cities don't grant monopolies to a cable company. Service is better and cheaper in those cities.

 

[bripat9643]

Tax Rate vs. Job Growth

In fact, if you ranked each year since 1950 by overall job growth, the top five years would all boast marginal tax rates at 70 percent or higher. The top 10 years would share marginal tax rates at 50 percent or higher. The two worst years, on the other hand, were 2008 and 2009, when the top marginal tax rate was 35 percent. In the 13 years that the top marginal tax rate has been at its current level or lower, only one year even cracks the top 20 in overall job creation.

Contrary to Republican claims, lower taxes on the rich don’t lead to higher economic growth either.

CHART: Lower Taxes On The Rich Don't Lead To Job Growth

Tax Rate vs. Economic Growth

Back in the 1950s, when the top marginal tax rate was more than 90 percent, real annual growth averaged more than 4 percent. During the last eight years, when the top marginal rate was just 35 percent, real growth was less than half that. Altogether, in years when the top marginal rate was lower than 39.6 percent — the top rate during the 1990s — annual real growth averaged 2.1 percent. In years when the rate was 39.6 percent or higher, real growth averaged 3.8 percent. The pattern is the same regardless of threshold. Take 50 percent, for example. Growth in years when the tax rate was less than 50 percent averaged 2.7 percent. In years with tax rates at or more than 50 percent, growth was 3.7 percent.

As Linden put it, “these numbers do not mean that higher rates necessarily lead to higher growth. But the central tenet of modern conservative economics is that a lower top marginal tax rate will result in more growth, and these numbers do show conclusively that history has not been kind to that theory.” Indeed, these numbers put the lie to the common Republican refrain that Obama and Democrats in Congress are trying to implement a “job-killing tax hike” by putting the top tax rate back to where it was under President Clinton.

CHART: Since 1950, Lower Top Tax Rates Have Coincided With Weaker Economic Growth

Conservatives can spin it all they wish - but the facts do not support their spin - neither in job growth or economic growth.

That's an example of the fallacy called "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc." It's the belief that because 'A' came after 'B' that 'A' caused 'B.' Of course, economic phenomena are always the result of variables too numerous to count. Attributing economic growth to one thing such as the tax rate based on the historical record isn't valid.

Economic growth in the United States after the war was high because we bombed the rest of the industrial world into the Stone Age. Our economy grew despite the tax rate, not because of it. The same tax rates were in place in the 1930s, and our economy wallowed in a 12 year long depression. You numskulls never consider that fact.

 

[The Rabbi]

That's called licensing. The other option is to not license the invention.

So now your point has been changed to there are no monopolies other than patent monopolies. Cause there is no such thing as a monopoly on anything else. ROFL you heard it folks monopolies don't exist. They are a figment of our imagination. We might as well delete monopoly and oligopoly from the dictionary.

I havent changed my point at all. With the exception of a few limited areas, like mail delivery, or the local water or electric company, there is no monopoly. Patents are exclusive rights to produce a particular item. But that item might compete with other patented items in any business. I cited AMD and Intel as an example but I am sure there are others. Glock uses a finish called tenifer, while Smith and Wesson uses one called melonite. Each one patented.
So no there are really no monopolies outside of the limited areas I mentioned. You have failed to prove your point.

Oh wait now we have little monopolies like ELECTRIC POWER AND WATER. I mean who needs that stuff anyway?

You need a life saving drug? Don't worry there's a patent for that, so what if it costs 10000 times more than it should. Drug monopolies are good for us. Please ignore the war on drugs, cause that isn't really being waged to keep the drug company profit oligopoly intact. Let's ignore the medicare expansion that sends US tax payer funds to drug company pockets who in turn scratch the back of politicians.

You want to get a loan or credit card from your credit union? Oh wait the banking oligopoly doesn't like that so the feds go after them. Wait isn't that QE money being used to shore up bank profits? Well they are to big to fail right?

I've got an idea, why don't you tell me one market that is not being manipulated by one of a single monopoly or an oligopoly and we'll just slap that down instead of me embarrassing you on all markets at once.

WTF are you blabbering about? Do you think there should be no patents, so a company that invests a billion dollars discovering a life saving drug should have the next drug company simply reverse engineer the thing and sell it without the same investment? Who in his right mind would do that?
How about music or books? Maybe just have unlimited pirating so no artist will ever make money from a royalty. That will sure make for a creative environment, right?
What the **** does QE money have to do with your credit union? With anything? You're just loading the boat with narco libertarian crap and spewing it, hoping something sticks.
There are no monopolies beyond the limited range I mentioned. I have been consistent in saying that. You are all over the ******* board hoping to find an example that sticks.

 

[The Rabbi]

Only to produce a specific item. Other items might compete with it under different patents.
AMD and Intel both compete in chips, each using their own patented technology.
I realize that's an advanced concept for a chowderhead like you, but there you have it.

That's called licensing. The other option is to not license the invention.

So now your point has been changed to there are no monopolies other than patent monopolies. Cause there is no such thing as a monopoly on anything else. ROFL you heard it folks monopolies don't exist. They are a figment of our imagination. We might as well delete monopoly and oligopoly from the dictionary.

The only corporate monopolies that have ever existed are all creations of the government. Take your local cable monopoly, for instance. Many cities don't grant monopolies to a cable company. Service is better and cheaper in those cities.

Taxi companies are another example. Localities issue medallions or licenses. So taxi rates are high. Of course contrary to what idiot Brown thinks, they are subject to competition, in this case from Uber and Lyft. Even monopolies face competition at times.

 

[Lakhota]

The trickle-down theory of giving the rich bigger meals while hoping they will leave more table scraps is laughable, and has been factually proven to be illogical economic policy.

 

[The Rabbi]

The trickle-down theory of giving the rich bigger meals while hoping they will leave more table scraps is laughable, and has been factually proven to be illogical economic policy.

You dont have a clue what you're talking about. Just STFU.

 

[RKMBrown]

Tax Rate vs. Job Growth

In fact, if you ranked each year since 1950 by overall job growth, the top five years would all boast marginal tax rates at 70 percent or higher. The top 10 years would share marginal tax rates at 50 percent or higher. The two worst years, on the other hand, were 2008 and 2009, when the top marginal tax rate was 35 percent. In the 13 years that the top marginal tax rate has been at its current level or lower, only one year even cracks the top 20 in overall job creation.

Contrary to Republican claims, lower taxes on the rich don’t lead to higher economic growth either.

CHART: Lower Taxes On The Rich Don't Lead To Job Growth

Tax Rate vs. Economic Growth

Back in the 1950s, when the top marginal tax rate was more than 90 percent, real annual growth averaged more than 4 percent. During the last eight years, when the top marginal rate was just 35 percent, real growth was less than half that. Altogether, in years when the top marginal rate was lower than 39.6 percent — the top rate during the 1990s — annual real growth averaged 2.1 percent. In years when the rate was 39.6 percent or higher, real growth averaged 3.8 percent. The pattern is the same regardless of threshold. Take 50 percent, for example. Growth in years when the tax rate was less than 50 percent averaged 2.7 percent. In years with tax rates at or more than 50 percent, growth was 3.7 percent.

As Linden put it, “these numbers do not mean that higher rates necessarily lead to higher growth. But the central tenet of modern conservative economics is that a lower top marginal tax rate will result in more growth, and these numbers do show conclusively that history has not been kind to that theory.” Indeed, these numbers put the lie to the common Republican refrain that Obama and Democrats in Congress are trying to implement a “job-killing tax hike” by putting the top tax rate back to where it was under President Clinton.

CHART: Since 1950, Lower Top Tax Rates Have Coincided With Weaker Economic Growth

Conservatives can spin it all they wish - but the facts do not support their spin - neither in job growth nor economic growth. The trickle-down theory of giving the rich bigger meals while hoping they will leave more table scraps is laughable, and has been factually proven to be illogical economic policy.

^ dumb ass thinks investment returns are immediate and over-taxation has no impact.

 

[RKMBrown]

That's called licensing. The other option is to not license the invention.

So now your point has been changed to there are no monopolies other than patent monopolies. Cause there is no such thing as a monopoly on anything else. ROFL you heard it folks monopolies don't exist. They are a figment of our imagination. We might as well delete monopoly and oligopoly from the dictionary.

The only corporate monopolies that have ever existed are all creations of the government. Take your local cable monopoly, for instance. Many cities don't grant monopolies to a cable company. Service is better and cheaper in those cities.

Taxi companies are another example. Localities issue medallions or licenses. So taxi rates are high. Of course contrary to what idiot Brown thinks, they are subject to competition, in this case from Uber and Lyft. Even monopolies face competition at times.

Where did I say monopolies don't face competition? Are you retarded?

 

[RKMBrown]

I havent changed my point at all. With the exception of a few limited areas, like mail delivery, or the local water or electric company, there is no monopoly. Patents are exclusive rights to produce a particular item. But that item might compete with other patented items in any business. I cited AMD and Intel as an example but I am sure there are others. Glock uses a finish called tenifer, while Smith and Wesson uses one called melonite. Each one patented.
So no there are really no monopolies outside of the limited areas I mentioned. You have failed to prove your point.

Oh wait now we have little monopolies like ELECTRIC POWER AND WATER. I mean who needs that stuff anyway?

You need a life saving drug? Don't worry there's a patent for that, so what if it costs 10000 times more than it should. Drug monopolies are good for us. Please ignore the war on drugs, cause that isn't really being waged to keep the drug company profit oligopoly intact. Let's ignore the medicare expansion that sends US tax payer funds to drug company pockets who in turn scratch the back of politicians.

You want to get a loan or credit card from your credit union? Oh wait the banking oligopoly doesn't like that so the feds go after them. Wait isn't that QE money being used to shore up bank profits? Well they are to big to fail right?

I've got an idea, why don't you tell me one market that is not being manipulated by one of a single monopoly or an oligopoly and we'll just slap that down instead of me embarrassing you on all markets at once.

WTF are you blabbering about? Do you think there should be no patents, so a company that invests a billion dollars discovering a life saving drug should have the next drug company simply reverse engineer the thing and sell it without the same investment? Who in his right mind would do that?
How about music or books? Maybe just have unlimited pirating so no artist will ever make money from a royalty. That will sure make for a creative environment, right?
What the **** does QE money have to do with your credit union? With anything? You're just loading the boat with narco libertarian crap and spewing it, hoping something sticks.
There are no monopolies beyond the limited range I mentioned. I have been consistent in saying that. You are all over the ******* board hoping to find an example that sticks.

Where did I say there should be no patents or copyrights? Are you mentally handicapped? As for copyrights in particular, they were fine when they were the right to copy after some limited time span. However, now that they are UNLIMITED in length they are no longer copy rights they are permanent restrictions from copying anything the age of Micky Mouse or younger. As for patenting life, no we should not let our tax dollars and insurance payments be spent to invent life saving drugs that they overcharge for. What good is a lifesaving drug if it breaks the bank? That's government mandated wealth distribution to the drug oligopoly. Example, it costs tens of thousands of dollars for each round of anti-venom. It can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to treat you if you get bit by a snake. Anti-venom is old tech, nothing new. There is absolutely no excuse for this. Our government mandates which supplier of what drug we have to use, then ignores the overcharging. As I said, pick a market to discuss. You are the one that said there are no monopolies dumb ass.

 

[The Rabbi]

The only corporate monopolies that have ever existed are all creations of the government. Take your local cable monopoly, for instance. Many cities don't grant monopolies to a cable company. Service is better and cheaper in those cities.

Taxi companies are another example. Localities issue medallions or licenses. So taxi rates are high. Of course contrary to what idiot Brown thinks, they are subject to competition, in this case from Uber and Lyft. Even monopolies face competition at times.

Where did I say monopolies don't face competition? Are you retarded?

Definition of 'Monopoly'

A situation in which a single company or group owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service. By definition, monopoly is characterized by an absence of competition, which often results in high prices and inferior products.

According to a strict academic definition, a monopoly is a market containing a single firm. In such instances where a single firm holds monopoly power, the company will typically be forced to divest its assets. Antimonopoly regulation protects free markets from being dominated by a single entity.

OK you have proven conclusively you dont know waht you're talking about. I cant deal with that level of ignorance. Bye.

 

[The Rabbi]

Oh wait now we have little monopolies like ELECTRIC POWER AND WATER. I mean who needs that stuff anyway?

You need a life saving drug? Don't worry there's a patent for that, so what if it costs 10000 times more than it should. Drug monopolies are good for us. Please ignore the war on drugs, cause that isn't really being waged to keep the drug company profit oligopoly intact. Let's ignore the medicare expansion that sends US tax payer funds to drug company pockets who in turn scratch the back of politicians.

You want to get a loan or credit card from your credit union? Oh wait the banking oligopoly doesn't like that so the feds go after them. Wait isn't that QE money being used to shore up bank profits? Well they are to big to fail right?

I've got an idea, why don't you tell me one market that is not being manipulated by one of a single monopoly or an oligopoly and we'll just slap that down instead of me embarrassing you on all markets at once.

WTF are you blabbering about? Do you think there should be no patents, so a company that invests a billion dollars discovering a life saving drug should have the next drug company simply reverse engineer the thing and sell it without the same investment? Who in his right mind would do that?
How about music or books? Maybe just have unlimited pirating so no artist will ever make money from a royalty. That will sure make for a creative environment, right?
What the **** does QE money have to do with your credit union? With anything? You're just loading the boat with narco libertarian crap and spewing it, hoping something sticks.
There are no monopolies beyond the limited range I mentioned. I have been consistent in saying that. You are all over the ******* board hoping to find an example that sticks.

Where did I say there should be no patents or copyrights? Are you mentally handicapped? As for copyrights in particular, they were fine when they were the right to copy after some limited time span. However, now that they are UNLIMITED in length they are no longer copy rights they are permanent restrictions from copying anything the age of Micky Mouse or younger. As for patenting life, no we should not let our tax dollars and insurance payments be spent to invent life saving drugs that they overcharge for. What good is a lifesaving drug if it breaks the bank? That's government mandated wealth distribution to the drug oligopoly. Example, it costs tens of thousands of dollars for each round of anti-venom. It can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to treat you if you get bit by a snake. Anti-venom is old tech, nothing new. There is absolutely no excuse for this. Our government mandates which supplier of what drug we have to use, then ignores the overcharging. As I said, pick a market to discuss. You are the one that said there are no monopolies dumb ass.

Copyrights are not unlimited in length. They are limited to the life of the author plus 50 years.

You are too uninformed to argue with. You literatlly dont know what you dont know.